Hasselblad X2D and Leica S3 - Update 2: A difficult focus

[Photon42]

I guess that R&D resources are limited and were moved towards the system(s) requiring them the most. I would also guess that the S system development had a lot of positive impact on the development of their L-lineup.
Somehow for me Hasselblad is the go to MF platform, as it is their core system and that seem to stay like that for the foreseeable future. The same goes for Leica and the M system. Probably the one system I would keep, if I have to chose.

 

[bab]

Will be interesting what Leica S4+new lenses can offer over Hasselblad (or others) and for what price.
And which lens line up they can deliver. I am not interested in a system where I can buy 2 lenses and have to wait years for other lenses to show up, without any plan communicated.
I love Leica products and the S lenses, but I have been really disappointed how slow they developed new bodies. I mean the S2 was very innovative when it came up, very IMO.
But later they just gave us new sensors and improved small details. And Fuji and Hassy developed much more much faster.
If I see how much I paid for these S lenses....
I might rather buy a used S3 from someone switching to S4, than buying into a new system with uncertain future for high price.
On the other side... if the existing S lenses also work fine on new S4 body, ...
Who knows, but competition is strong nowadays in small medium format.

Yes the used glass was an obvious pick. Leica knows how to manufacture glass they definitely lack in camera manufacturing or (maybe the decision makers think the gamble to make up to date sensor capturing devices with built in optics might hinder the reputation of the brand. Leica is truly iconic! Then so is COKE but eventually came Diet Coke! The S3 was pronounced dead at birth due to time of use circumstances but Leica released it for those die hearts.

This thread has serious time and monies invested by the author he is deserving of praise.

 

[Godfrey]

I keep hearing people say that "Leica knows lenses but they lack in camera bodies" and I find it puzzling. If Leica bodies are so deficient, why is that I keep getting my best photographs with a Leica M... or CL... or SL? I think they make superb bodies, that work just exactly the way I expect a good camera to work. Now, that said, I have no use for autofocus, multiple bazillion focusing options, a bazillion frames a second sequence shooting, etc etc. I'm willing to pay extra money for a camera that has as little of that stuff as I can get away with. I want a good meter, a good lens, the ability to focus the lens accurately, and a reliable shutter. The rest is all conveniences and infrequently used edge-case capabilities for me.

So the "lacking" digital M10-M (and the 'soon to return from service' M10-R) have become my standard cameras now. And I'm absolutely delighted with them, they work brilliantly for me.

When it comes to medium format digital, well, frankly I love the quality that my Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c gives me. And it's simple to use. And the back drops straight onto my 500CM and does miracles with my ancient Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. But I find it a bit bulky/heavy to carry and slower to shoot with than I want most of the time nowadays. So far I've sold off one of the lenses, I'll post two more for sale soon. I'm a little reluctant to sell the camera and the remaining lens because, if I do, then I might as well also sell the V system. But that decision is still in the future.

G

 

[Paratom]

Imo Leica does know how do build cameras. Specially they are the best (imo) in offering a slim still functional user interface and menue system, great color, good viewfinder etc.
what I miss is that they develop the bodies further on, to stay with your examples a cl with ibis and a less noisy shutter would be great, or an S body with more than one af point and more precise focus also for difficult subjects or even ibis would have been great as well, a sl with phase detect and usable c-af ( Inhope for the sl3), a 70200/2.8 sl and a tc 1.4. They do it right with the M system. What is great is compability between the systems.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

It is because businesses nowadays are managed according to marginal Return on Capital - meaning sunk costs don’t matter if you see a changed market demand and better opportunities within the for to deploy capital.

Let’s say you invest x million in the S system. It sells well, but sales do not grow at one point and you don’t believe that you can reignite the momentum with new investments. If there are other projects within reach of the company, which generate better returns for each dollar invested, these get precedence.

Phase doesn’t pour money into photo because the put everything they have into industrial - makes more money now even compared to a IQ5.

When S declined and they decided to do a professional 35mm system camera they figured most money to be made there short term.

Rodenstock doesn’t crank out the long planned 25mm lens, because they don’t think there is money for it and because they make more in industrial.

Every year a new budget gets planned and managers decide where to put the money. Since the world changes and options change money flows into different areas. Consumer doesn’t see the full picture, but just “his system perspective” - but it all makes sense.

 

[itsdoable]

<snip>
.... It is significantly easier to design high performing lenses if you reduce the distance between exit pupil and sensor area....
<snip>

Due to the current sensor designs, Mirrorless lenses have to be tele-centric as well, so the wide angles are retrofocus - you can check the magnitude by measuring the apparent pupil diamerter as viewed from the front and the back of the lens. The exit pupils are about the same as SLR lenses. But since there is no mirror, the multiple lens elements used in front of the pupil can be moved behind the pupil, which allows for a more compact wide angle lenses (when you measure from the image plane).

 

[Paratom]

It is because businesses nowadays are managed according to marginal Return on Capital - meaning sunk costs don’t matter if you see a changed market demand and better opportunities within the for to deploy capital.

Let’s say you invest x million in the S system. It sells well, but sales do not grow at one point and you don’t believe that you can reignite the momentum with new investments. If there are other projects within reach of the company, which generate better returns for each dollar invested, these get precedence.

Phase doesn’t pour money into photo because the put everything they have into industrial - makes more money now even compared to a IQ5.

When S declined and they decided to do a professional 35mm system camera they figured most money to be made there short term.

Rodenstock doesn’t crank out the long planned 25mm lens, because they don’t think there is money for it and because they make more in industrial.

Every year a new budget gets planned and managers decide where to put the money. Since the world changes and options change money flows into different areas. Consumer doesn’t see the full picture, but just “his system perspective” - but it all makes sense.

If you do not develop a system any further and if you do not invest in innovating a system then its no wonder sales will go down.
It's like the question - what existed first, hen or egg?

 

[Photon42]

I guess Leica at some point rightly or wrongly thought there is more business to be made with an SL system and that's where resources then got allocated to, mostly. From a future oriented perspective, sunk cost does not really matter. What you compare is what you have got as a base for system A vs system B, what are the projected costs of the two lines compared and what is the expected respective profit. Maybe now the technology base is there for a mirrorless S. I would love to see it even though I am planning to sink any money in it. For me, digital MF will very likely stay and end with the Hasselblad X system.

 

[Pieter 12]

The problem with the manufacturers continually chasing innovation and higher resolution is they soon abandon support for earlier models, leaving those who don't feel the need for the latest gear praying nothing goes wrong.

 

[MGrayson]

The problem with the manufacturers continually chasing innovation and higher resolution is they soon abandon support for earlier models, leaving those who don't feel the need for the latest gear praying nothing goes wrong.

I recall Leica management’s incomprehension at the request for a higher resolution in the S3. “All our customers say 37.5MP is more than enough!” Probably true of the pros interacting with Wetzlar. I’d have much preferred if they had kept the old resolution and improved speed, AF, and color. IBIS is in the “and a Pony” class of wishes. But those other 3 would have been great. Alas for market forces!

 

[Paratom]

IMO the 60 MP was just right at that time. For me 37 would be ok, but its too far away from competition and the noise behaviour of the 60 MP sensor as well as color is totally fine IMO ( I once had once for betatest). The one thing where I am disappointed was that we did not see any improvements regading AF/ AF-functions.
After getting a Contax 55mm I am also fine with lens size, even though a more copact 45 would have been great.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I think Leica decided, after having completed the development of the SL line and seeing the success of the Fuji / Hassy systems, that creating a mirrorless digital medium format system is worth it. That's fantastic news in this difficult economic environment. I see no one else really ploughing big R&D into MFD at the moment except them.

This gives them a chance to address all criticisms raised over the years relating to the core system design, incl. AF.

It is not always bad to be late to the party. They have learned a lot through their cooperation with Panasonic and in forums the world is often seen in an oversimplified manner in the sense: "They should have fixed AF, they should have done more than a new sensor, etc.". It is not that no one at Leica HQ is aware that Sony's AF is better than their SL AF, etc., but it takes enormous resources to mimic such technology and sometimes the constraint isn't even money, but also talent.

This said, they will get support from Panasonic regarding Phase AF and it is also my understanding that they co-develop some technologies to save costs; I think when it comes out it will be a spectacular system since they now are in a completely different place than they were when the S2 was designed.

It's gonna be exciting. Laying the foundation for a new system and mount only happens between decades!

 

[Paratom]

My hope (for my bank account) is that it will not be that much better than what Hassy offers
My other hope is, that if they bring the S4, that there will be more than 1 or 2 lenses available, and even more important, that the current S lenses would work without too many restrictions.
In regards of AF, I dont find it oversimplified to say that I wish that the S3 would focus lenses like the 100mm reliable. Also if I nail many more sports images with a Canon R body vs a SL, which has been marketed by Leica as super proffessional and super fast, so I hope for an SL3 which makes me sell my Canon R body.
I dont say all this to beat Leica with words, I say all this because I love their products, and I am a loyal user, and because I believe benchmarking and challenge is important.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

My hope (for my bank account) is that it will not be that much better than what Hassy offers
My other hope is, that if they bring the S4, that there will be more than 1 or 2 lenses available, and even more important, that the current S lenses would work without too many restrictions.
In regards of AF, I dont find it oversimplified to say that I wish that the S3 would focus lenses like the 100mm reliable. Also if I nail many more sports images with a Canon R body vs a SL, which has been marketed by Leica as super proffessional and super fast, so I hope for an SL3 which makes me sell my Canon R body.
I dont say all this to beat Leica with words, I say all this because I love their products, and I am a loyal user, and because I believe benchmarking and challenge is important.

The S lenses were designed 15 years ago and a lot has changed in terms of how you'd design fast focusing AF lenses. I think the problem is two-fold:

+ In a mirror-based system they would have had to design a new custom AF chip that gets a split viaw in the prism and which is better than what they have; I think that's not cheap.
+ The S lenses were built in a rather uncompromising way, so there is a lot of lens mass these AF motors have to move (I am not a specialist in lens design, but my understanding is that there are better approaches nowadays both on the AF motor side and the way the lens is designed if you can be closer to the sensor). Sony also gradually impoved their lens designs and introduced a new linear motor AF system a few years back with not all lenses having it.

So chances are, that, with a blank canvas in front of them, they can design the lenses in a way so that the moved mass is small and that the there's space for say dual linear motors like in the latest Sony lenses.

Who knows how it will look like, but if they stay true to their paradigm they'll aim for 2.0 aperture (faster than competition), APO, high-end build and weather sealing, etc.

 

[MGrayson]

The S lenses were designed 15 years ago and a lot has changed in terms of how you'd design fast focusing AF lenses. I think the problem is two-fold:

+ In a mirror-based system they would have had to design a new custom AF chip that gets a split viaw in the prism and which is better than what they have; I think that's not cheap.
+ The S lenses were built in a rather uncompromising way, so there is a lot of lens mass these AF motors have to move (I am not a specialist in lens design, but my understanding is that there are better approaches nowadays both on the AF motor side and the way the lens is designed if you can be closer to the sensor). Sony also gradually impoved their lens designs and introduced a new linear motor AF system a few years back with not all lenses having it.

So chances are, that, with a blank canvas in front of them, they can design the lenses in a way so that the moved mass is small and that the there's space for say dual linear motors like in the latest Sony lenses.

Who knows how it will look like, but if they stay true to their paradigm they'll aim for 2.0 aperture (faster than competition), APO, high-end build and weather sealing, etc.

These are exactly the engineering challenges that led to the current SL lens design. The devil will be in the details. How much of the current S look will survive the major change in optical design. I only have experience with the SL zooms, and they are truly great. Maybe I should take a closer look at the SL f/2 lenses and see how they render.

Well, it will be too expensive to keep switching systems, so I'll just have to keep both .

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Well I actually spoke to someone involved about the lens design topic; the S lenses have a distinct look in the sense that they are sharp, but not bitingly sharp - they are similar like cinema lenses with a very pleasing balance between bokeh and micro contrast. It is precisely this problem they are trying to solve now - how to bridge the cinematic look of the S lenses with the clinical look of the SL primes.

I have most of the SL2 primes - although great, something is missing. They are too perfect. I don’t know what it is, maybe it is the total lack of errors which reminds me of an IPhone picture, sorry to say, when looking at them from afar.

The S lenses by contrast are just beautiful. They are also almost perfect, but only almost. Especially skin gets rendered beautifully and the OOF areas have a beautiful greenish tint to them. Very slight.

The goal is probably to find a ground between these looks, I hope they manage.

But S lenses will stay compatible and what makes me even more excited is the prospect of an electronic AF m Adapter.

The new S4 will be a master of all Leica systems - how cool is that - the system which takes: M, S vintage, S next gen and SL lenses all at the same time. It will make the SL a bit obsolete, but not the M.

Probably: 7k for SL3, 12-14k for S4 and 9k for M system in the future …

 

[Paratom]

I 100% agree about that lovely drawing of s-lenses. I find the Hassy 80/1.9 is not bad either, the 45/65/90 xcd dont deliver this look IMO.
From the SL lenses the SL50/1.4 is also a little in this direction , IMO.
If the new S lenses should be f2.0, and looking at the size of SL lenses, it will be interesting to see how big and heavy the S lenses will be.

Are there any rumours when the S4 could come to market?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I just know it is in development right now and I also know from history that things will take time. So 2024 to be optimistic, 2025 probably more realistic. But who knows.

S3 was also announced and then delayed quite a bit.

 

[Paratom]

Wow, I had hoped for end of this year (without knowing anything). 2024/2025 its a long time. I shall stop to think about things that could eventually happen one day and focus further on things that are real and available today

 

[buildbot]

Wow, I had hoped for end of this year (without knowing anything). 2024/2025 its a long time. I shall stop to think about things that could eventually happen one day and focus further on things that are real and available today

It's still hard to get chips, many small ICs and passives are out of stock. At least that is what I hear